SCOTUS Leak

[Mucubfan]

Assuming they did their due diligence to confirm its authenticity, nothing that Politico did was in any way unprofessional.

Aren't you one of those who claims the "liberal media" should report the truth?  Today, the SC confirmed this was authentic.  I guess you only care about truth when it suits you huh?

Obviously. They want "the truth" about Hillary's emails, but give zero fs about classified docs going to MarALago. Need the info on Hunter, ignore anything on shady billion dollar investments into Jared's company.

It's pure hypocrisy time and time again. Just like a bunch of men telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies.

[MU82]

  beyond commical?  in other words, our "journalists" have no self control?  professionalism?  yup, that what i thought

  on the other hand, if it was a leak about crack head and/or the "big guy" we all know which file that goes into

Perfect dodging of the question, roQQet. I'll try again and I'll only use small words for you:

So you think Politico should have ignored the story?

[Pakuni]

Interesting tweet thread from a former Supreme Court clerk and current Yale Law professor who suspects the leak was done by someone who supports Alito's decision.

https://twitter.com/akapczynski/status/1521494553877962754

[JWags85]

Obviously. They want "the truth" about Hillary's emails, but give zero fs about classified docs going to MarALago. Need the info on Hunter, ignore anything on shady billion dollar investments into Jared's company.

It's pure hypocrisy time and time again. Just like a bunch of men telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies.

I'd love to know whose burner this is.  The posting history is the evil twin of the Chicos burners.

[real chili 83]

IBFLT

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Interesting tweet thread from a former Supreme Court clerk and current Yale Law professor who suspects the leak was done by someone who supports Alito's decision.

https://twitter.com/akapczynski/status/1521494553877962754

I could see either side of the aisle believing that a leak would benefit them. But in the end, it doesn't really matter, this court is going to overturn Roe, it's just a matter of to what degree.

[Lighthouse 84]

A. I hope the leaker is caught and disbarred, among other punishments.  Second, all the leak did was accelerate the issue from being released in the summer to now, if it in fact holds to be the decision that gets published.  And C, if the issue goes back to the states, and each state makes its own laws relative to  abortion, I fear that left with no restrictions imposed by Roe, a state could go to the extreme in either direction.  Yes, there will be some states that enact heart beat laws.  But there will also be states that will do away with all restrictions (New York and Illinois come to mind based on each's governors promising to make their respective states the most "progressive" in terms of abortion) and allow abortions up until birth   Personally, I don't think the  majority of people in the country want either of these solutions.   

While I think Roe's analysis was completely wrong since there's zero in the Constitution granting a right to abortion and wholly made up by Blackmun, at least there were some restrictions in Roe preventing abortion in later stages. 

Here's a novel idea.  How about the federal legislature make a law when it's a matter not specifically enumerated in the Constitution?  Regardless of which side one lines up on, this is just one issue of many that should be decided by Congress and not left to SCOTUS to make law.

IBTL.

[4everwarriors]

Crean sucks

[MU82]

From the NYT's David Leonhardt:

Roe has been law for almost 50 years, and Democrats — who almost universally support it — have won five of the past eight presidential elections. How, then, did an anti-Roe Supreme Court majority happen?

Circumstance plays a role. Donald Trump was able to appoint three justices, because of retirement or death — the most appointments in a single term in decades. But two specific decisions also loom over the potential repeal of Roe:

++ In 2016, after Justice Antonin Scalia died, Mitch McConnell and other Senate Republicans refused to allow Barack Obama to appoint a replace during his final year in office. It was an aggressive power grab with little precedent, and it worked, after Trump won that year's election.

++ In 2013 and 2014, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg decided not to retire, even though Obama could have appointed her replacement and Democrats controlled the Senate. She was enjoying her job as a justice, and she ignored pleas from other progressives, who specifically warned that she could be threatening abortion access.

Barrett now occupies Ginsburg's old seat, and Gorsuch occupies Scalia's. Without both of those votes, Roe would probably not fall. During oral arguments, Roberts appeared to prefer a compromise that would have allowed states to ban abortion at 15 weeks; such a decision would have outlawed only a small percentage of abortions.

[Mucubfan]

I'd love to know whose burner this is.  The posting history is the evil twin of the Chicos burners.

Not a burner. I'm just me. Apologies if rampant hypocrisy boils my blood.